We've also been talking about how ESPN has been making the rounds, trying to "change the narrative" surrounding cord cutting to suggest that worries about ESPN's long-term viability in the face of TV evolution have been overblown. Part of that effort this week apparently involved reaching out to Nielsen to demand the company fiddle with its cord cutting numbers, which ESPN then peddled to reporters in the hopes of creating an artificial, rosier tomorrow:

"On Thursday, ESPN reached out to reporters to let them know that cord-cutting isn’t nearly as bad as it sounds, and that the reason is the way Nielsen revised its pay-TV universe estimates. Nielsen (under client pressure) decided to remove broadband-only homes from its sample, but it didn’t restate historical data. It is now showing that, as of December, 1.2 million homes had cut the cord, a much smaller number than its earlier figure of 4.33 million homes for the year."

Isn't that handy! This of course isn't the first time Nielsen has tweaked troubling numbers on demand to appease an industry eager to believe its cash cow will live forever. The irony is that the same industry that's happy to gobble up potentially distorted data is simultaneously deriding Nielsen out of the other corner of its mouth as a company whose data is no longer reliable in the modern streaming video age. In a profile piece examining Nielsen's struggle to adapt, the New York Times (and Nielsen itself) puts the problem rather succinctly:

"Yet Nielsen is established on an inherent conflict that can impede the adoption of new measurement methods. Nielsen is paid hundreds of millions of dollars a year by the television industry that it measures. And that industry, which uses Nielsen’s ratings to sell ads, is known to oppose changes that do not favor it. “People want us to innovate as long as the innovation is to their advantage,” Mr. Hasker said.

Obviously getting a distrusted metric company to fiddle with data even further won't save ESPN. The company's SEC filings still suggest ESPN lost 7 million subscribers in the last few years alone. Some of these subscribers have cut the cord, but others have simply "trimmed" the cord -- signing up for skinny bundles that have started to boot ESPN out of the core TV lineup. Similarly, studies have recently shown that 56% of ESPN users would drop ESPN for an $8 reduction on their cable bill. This sentiment isn't going to magically go away as alternative viewing options increase.

BTIG analyst Rich Greenfield, who funded that survey and has been a thorn in ESPN's side for weeks (for you know, highlighting facts and stuff), had a little advice for ESPN if it's worried about accurate data:

"“If this is an important issue for ESPN, they should start releasing actual subscriber numbers rather than relying on third parties [Nielsen]. If they are upset with the confusion, let’s see the actual number of paying subscribers in the US over five years."

Wall Street's realization that ESPN may not fare well under the new pay TV paradigm at one point caused $22 billion in Disney stock value to simply evaporate. As a result, ESPN executives have addressed these worries in the only way they know how: by massaging statistics and insulting departing subscribers by claiming they were old and unwanted anyway. One gets the sneaking suspicion that's not going to be enough to shelter ESPN from the coming storm.

The analysts at FBR Capital Markets note that Netflix served 10 billion hours of internet video content in the first quarter of the year, roughly two hours per subscriber per day. By dividing this two-hour figure by 24 hours, then multiplying it by the number of U.S. Netflix subscribers as a percentage of households, the analysts estimate Netflix would see a Q1 ratings score of 2.6, on par with both ABC and NBC. The difference, of course, is that Netflix is growing quickly while traditional cable broadcasters are losing market share, especially on the kids programming front.

Of course, the fact that Nielsen can't join the modern era and track TV viewing over the internet suggests this isn't quite yet an apples-to-apples comparison:

"One major caveat: Nielsen TV ratings cover, at most, up to seven days of VOD and DVR viewing — and exclude online-video views, which networks say are an increasing part of the pie. Moreover, TV networks provide a different blend of content, such as live sports, that Netflix doesn’t. And anyway, Netflix doesn’t care about “ratings” of individual shows, given that it doesn’t sell ads and has steadfastly refused to disclose anything but general data about viewing."

Except Variety may overstate this, since the cable industry's "TV Everywhere" initiative (which lets users watch cable content on their iPads and other devices in the hopes of keeping them from cutting the cord) is a bit of a dud. Cable video on demand viewing has been in the toilet for some time as well. And while sports is where cable still outshines internet video (for now), the cable and broadcast apparatus isn't helping its case by failing to improve customer service, yet relentlessly driving up rates in the face of this increased competition. As such, people generally like Netflix's value proposition more:

"Another data point called out by FBR’s analysts: When consumers were asked if they had to choose between Netflix and a cable or satellite TV subscription, 57% picked Netflix, with 43% opting for pay TV, according to a survey FBR conducted with ClearVoice Research in April. "Netflix subscribers clearly like it more than pay TV, which we see as arguing for pricing leverage, since pay TV, on average, costs over $80 per month,” the analysts wrote, citing Netflix’s average $8 price point."

And things are going to get worse. Netflix is already leading the charge toward 4K and HDR content, something the cable industry (and especially the telcos using fiber to the node or DSL) won't have the bandwidth to deliver for years. And while the cable industry loses subscribers slowly to cord cutting, Netflix is busy growing internationally, with plans to offer service in 200 different countries by the end of this year. Apparently, burying your head in the sand and pretending cord cutting wasn't real didn't magically stop the future from arriving anyway. Who knew?

This silly denial included the TV ratings measurement firm Nielsen, which for several years insisted that cord cutting was "purely fiction." When it became clear that cord cutting was very real, Nielsen didn't admit error. It simply stopped calling it cord cutting and started calling it "zero TV households."

Except here's the rub: all that time that Nielsen was downplaying cord cutting, it wasn't bothering to actually measure it. It was only late last year that Nielsen began to at least try tracking television viewers on PC, tablets and phones (something still not fully implemented), and the firm only just announced last week that it would soon begin tracking Netflix viewing (did I mention that it's 2014?). Shockingly, guess what the preliminary Nielsen data leaked to the Journal indicates?

"The Nielsen documents also contain some of the strongest data to date suggesting that time spent on these streaming services is meaningfully eating into traditional television viewing. Television viewing is down 7% for the month ended Oct. 27 from a year earlier among adults 18 to 49, a demographic that advertisers pay a premium to reach. Meanwhile, subscribership to streaming video services has jumped to 40% of households in September, up from 34% in January, Nielsen found. That is a rate of growth that advertising agency executives who saw the Nielsen document said they found shocking. Netflix accounts for the vast majority of the viewership."

That's on top of the small but meaningful net loss of 150,000 pay TV customers last quarter; including the first ever third-quarter net loss for companies like DirecTV. Nielsen, like broadcast executives, has a vested interest in propping up the legacy cash cow and burying its head squarely in the sand, hoping the obvious cord cutting phenomenon is akin to yeti and unicorns. We've seen an increasing number of top telecom and cable industry analysts who spent years insisting cord cutting wasn't real, only to sheepishly and quietly change their tune over the last year. Now that Nielsen's actually bothering to measure the data, it should be only a matter of time before it too admits it was wrong, right?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>selective-hearinghttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20141120/11484229209Thu, 24 Mar 2011 01:14:00 PDTNielsen Sues Comscore With Patent It Once Was Sued For InfringingMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110323/04095313599/nielsen-sues-comscore-with-patent-it-once-was-sued-infringing.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110323/04095313599/nielsen-sues-comscore-with-patent-it-once-was-sued-infringing.shtml"5675510") for the invention of a "computer use meter and analyzer," has now sued competitor Comscore over the same patent, which it eventually came into possession of after settling the lawsuit by buying the patent from Jupiter Media Metrix. Once again, however, this seems to demonstrate the pointlessness of the patent system. Metering and analyzing internet traffic is something that came about because everyone needed it and lots of people tried to tackle the problem. No one went into that space because there was the availability of a patent. People got into the space because there was a need and a market. And, now, Nielsen seems to want to beat the competition not through competing with better products, but by suing over a questionable patent.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>destructive-force-of-patentshttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110323/04095313599Mon, 29 Mar 2010 09:24:00 PDTCan We Come Up With A Better Way To Measure Innovation?Mike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20100326/1727008743.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20100326/1727008743.shtmlquite some time, we've pointed out that patents are not a proxy for how much innovation a company does. In fact, research has proven this pretty conclusively. And yet, because they're easily countable, the press and politicians love to use the number of patents as a proxy for how much innovation is happening. That leads to silly articles from folks who should know better, making statements like "Clearly, the global recession seriously hampered innovation in the United States" because fewer patent applications have been filed.

But, that leads to a separate issue. If you aren't using patents as a proxy, then how do you measure innovation? Tim O'Reilly is asking for suggestions on a measure innovation metric:

How might we construct a metric that would reflect the transformative power of the web (no patents), Google (nowhere near as many as their innovations), Facebook (ditto), Amazon (ditto, despite the 1-click flap), Craigslist, Wikipedia, not to mention free software such as Linux, Apache, MySQL and friends, as well the upwelling of innovation in media, maker culture, robotics... you name it: all the areas where small companies create new value and don't have time, money or inclination to divert effort from innovation to patents?

The problem is that I'm not sure there is any single metric that really works here -- especially when it comes to disruptive innovations. You could go with revenue, but one of the features of truly disruptive innovations is that they sometimes shrink direct markets (while greatly increasing the size of indirect markets). So that might not be very useful either. You could go with user adoption -- but that may be fleeting or possibly gamable.

Even with older successful technologies, I'm not sure these kinds of metrics would most accurately highlight how much their innovation meant. Telcos made lots of money, but much of the real innovative value of the telephone was what other businesses they eventually enabled. How do you calculate that?

The only real metric I can think of -- though I'm not sure how one would measure this accurately -- is how much you would have to pay customers to get them to stop using a certain innovation. If you went around and surveyed people, and figured out how much it would cost to get them to, say, stop using search engines or email or mobile phones or automobiles, you might be able to get a sense of the "value" of certain innovations. From there, as a baseline, you could potentially monitor the delta over time. Thus, as the iPod grows in "value," the value of a portable CD player would decrease. As mobile phone cameras got better, the value of portable cameras would decrease, etc. It would be a lot of work, but could give you a much better general sense of innovation and how it changes over time than any patents.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>the-market?https://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100326/1727008743Tue, 23 Oct 2007 11:58:00 PDTOnline Publishers Still Having Difficulty CountingDennis Yanghttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071022/200227.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071022/200227.shtmldifficult, at best. Most recently, Comscore reported a 9.3 percent drop in Facebook's traffic, which was met not by fears that the traffic to the super popular site was waning, but rather by explanations that that Comscore was likely under counting traffic from students who were doing their surfing from home during the summer. So, despite being around for over a decade, online publishers continue to have issues reporting consistent, accurate measures of their online audiences. Depending on who you ask, the number of pageviews for a site from one source may be double the number reported from another. To make things more confusing, earlier this year, Nielsen/NetRatings announced that it would no longer use pageviews as the standard unit of measure, opting rather for time spent on a website. As the amount of money spent on online advertising approaches $20 billion this year, this measurement issue is starting to become significant. However, this complaint about online advertising is ironic, since measurement in the other mediums is, at best, a crap shoot. Perhaps the problem with online advertising is that it, in fact, has too many numbers -- with television, print and radio, audience numbers are typically estimates. So, while those numbers may not be accurate, at least they're consistent.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>math-is-hardhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20071022/200227Tue, 10 Jul 2007 08:45:18 PDTNew Website Measurement System Just A Little Less Useless Than Previous OneJoseph Weisenthalhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070710/054555.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070710/054555.shtmlno longer use page views as its primary metric for measuring the popularity of websites. Instead, it will focus on the amount of time that users spend on the site. Obviously, there have been a lot of problems with the current system, as the use of page views grossly inflates the popularity of some sites, like MySpace, while penalizing sites that aren't refreshed or reloaded as often. As the above article notes, the new system will give YouTube a boost, but will ding Google's main site, which isn't designed to keep users around. Of course, therein lies the flaw with this new measurement system. Google is incredibly profitable and successful, precisely because it does a good job of whisking users away to other sites, either through ads or its search results. The idea of penalizing it because users don't spend a lot of time on the site is absurd. When it comes to TV shows, it may make sense to adopt a uniform measurement system, because all TV shows have the same purpose: to sell ads. Websites, however, have a variety of different business models, so trying to define a standard metric of success is going to prove impossible. Ultimately, the most meaningful measure of a site or service is its profitability, which, unlike page views or time spent, isn't so easily gamed.